Posts
Comments
There's a lot I could write about this topic, but none of it would add anything of help to anyone who has yet to make their first steps in what you call "real thinking". So I'd like to add the following:
My single most powerful practice for developing "real thinking" has been to take any concept that my mental map only has low resolution symbols for, and sit down and reflect on it.
I will refrain from trying to convince you, the reader of this comment, to actually try it out. The time it would take you to read the pages it would take me to make a comprehensive case (any attempt in that direction ends with at least as much writing as the post above) is far longer than the few minutes you could just sit down and try it out. But I'll leave a link to an anectode that even after a year still cracks me up (Original Seeing / Naturalism is related to this post, btw, and worth digging into): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CDzAwDxK2GnxBpu7h/?commentId=LrfmarA7zJACmWDNh
I've been, independently, trying to level up my Original Seeing (my, and probably most rationalist's, weakest link in OODA looping). I don't think I have any insights worth sharing here, you seem to be far ahead of me.
But you've brought up shikantaza ("just sitting"), which still gets a chuckle out of me: My head canon is that Original Seeing, Naturalism, Unseeing, but also Buddhism and Stoicism, all point at roughly the same thing in concept space. That is, I suspect Buddhism did, before people made a religion out of it. I suspect the same happened to Stoicism. I haven't bothered to analyze Christianity and other religions, they might not fit in that well.
I've come to that head canon because the implications of a high level of Original Seeing all point towards practices seen in both Buddhism and Stoicism. Not that I have attained high level, but I have enough to see where it's going. Shikantaza itself is hilarious, because with all the sports-team like traditions in Buddhism, I imagine that one guy going "guys, you can figure all this out on your own just by sitting", which is also how the Buddha did it originally, supposedly. If you figure things out for yourself, you probably don't need any traditions to guide your exercises. If you don't figure things out for yourself, you won't get a lot out of going through the traditions.
To bring it back: I suspect both Buddhism and Stoicism to be "fake" versions of Original Seeing, "fake" as described above.
It's funny to me. That's all I wanted to share.
Thanks for the feedback! I didn't know liquid democracy was a thing.
My thought process was: "This article is interesting. They suggest using software to enable voters to directly vote on issues rather than voting on representatives. They want to put it on top of existing processes. Here's a better way of getting to that goal."
This post doesn't suggest to change existing political systems, or to implement some software nation-wide. Changing a political system is a highly difficult problem. But forming a political party is easy, and so is implementing software and processes for issue based voting. You can thus then use a proxy political party to bring issue based voting into a democratic process without modifying the democratic process itself or fighting your way through the bureaucracy required to have your software used.